Confedferate Soldxiers are American Veterans by law.

Revolution =/= secession.

 

The Constitution of the United States of America

Article III, Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


The Constitution defines treason as: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Every single man, woman and child who took up arms against the United States (you know - the Union), or supported those who took up arms against the United States was a traitor - as defined by the Constitution. Worse than that, they were unsuccessful traitors. They lost. Badly. The questions of secession, slavery, and federal primacy were settled once and for all on April 9, 1865, and the federal government won quite handily. No amount of revisionist history by butthurt Southerners is going to change that. Spewing "Lost Cause" rhetoric now only demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of basic history and what it means to lose an illegal rebellion against your Constitutional government.

 

I believe these are the federal treason laws that are on the books today.

18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115

Interesting, it looks like many of todays liberals / progressives committed treason during the Vietnam War.

 

Sure he did, once he was in federal custody. What that has to do with it being a rebellion I have no idea.

Sure they are, since A3 prescribes no penalty. So what?

Maybe so, but not against the US, which is the only sort of treason defined in the CotUS.

Allow me to direct you to the supremacy clause of A6, which contains no mention of international law, to which Lincoln therefore could not be held accountable where the two were in conflict.

 

You would have to provide an example because I don't know of any U.S. citizen who fought in the Wehrmacht or the IJA or the IJN.

 

Texas vs White was a ruling by a stacked SC over the disposition of Federal bonds coming due; the military governor of Texas wanted the $150,000 for his own use. Given the SC was stacked with Republican appointed Judges known for blatantly taking bribes, we can surmise a percentage of those bonds were kicked back to them for their 'ruling'. If Lincoln had thought he was really acting legally, there would have been a case taken to the Court before he launched hostilities, not 4 years after the war was over to put lipstick on a pig.

 

It makes a big difference if it was a rebellion or a war.

I provided a link, it may be 90 pages long but you will see why Lincoln had to make a decision if it was a war or a rebellion. You'll also notice that Lincoln and the SCOTUS used Vattel's.

The South said it was a war.

Constitution and the Laws of War during the Civil
War, The Federal Courts, Practice & Procedure
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/vie...ty_scholarship

 

Of course, none of the applies to the seceding states, no matter how confused you are about the terminology.

I don't 'spew Lost Cause' rhetoric, I use the historical record, something you refuse to see for what it is. Write all the fantasy histories you want, the record will remain the same.

 

lol ... it wasn't a 'revolution'; they weren't overthrowing the Union, they were leaving it entirely.

 

I concur.

You know what the PC revisionist are teaching today in our schools and colleges ? That the South was trying to overthrow the federal government.

 

Confederate troops fired on a Federal military installation and we're supposed to honor them as "American" verterans?

It was the first act of aggressioin. Lincoln gave an order to resupply the fort and a contingency of South Carolina militia fired on them.

 

Kinda like those lefty war protesters who blocked the military freight train in Oakland, California to prevent war supplies from reaching our troops in Vietnam.

 

correction: Federal District Judge William T. Sweigert, ruled U.S. participation in the Vietnam War unconstitutional in 1970

 

For the record, while I don't support slavery, I do believe the South had the right to leave the union and suspect that we'd all be better off if they had. So I have no particular judgement against Southern graves.

However, I always found it odd how sensitive people are about graves. I never want to die, but it'll happen. I suppose I don't want somebody to dance on my grave or write insults on it, but if I'm dead, it really wouldn't matter. Either I don't even exist anymore, or I'm somewhere else. So why do people care? Dead is dead is gone - especially now that there probably isn't anybody alive who even knew them. On the other hand, I suppose I can see the value of preserving historical sites.

Or Lincoln did, because he could have, you know, sued for peace and let them leave. Treason just means you disagreed with the prevailing powers and had the balls to act against them. It's a morally neutral thing - because after all our founding fathers would have been convicted of treason but are instead called patriots only because they won.

 

Clearly the potential for such a thing was signifcant, given the number of citizens of Japanese, German and Italian descent; but documented cases or the lack thereof aside, obviously the question, be it hypothetical or otherwise, is a test of the logic by which you conclude that Confederate soldiers out to be considered American war vets. So how about answering it?

Dunno who the hell you think you're kidding. Lincoln hardly needed permission from the Judiciary, seeing he had standing constitutional authority to suppress insurrections.

What does this alleged difference have to do with the constitutional rights of Confederate soldiers?

You expect me to plow through all that to find something I have no reason to believe is there to be found?

 

The 'fired the first shot' argument doesn't fly; blockading another state's ports is an internationally recognized act of war, and still is. The 1956 war in the Sinai started when Nasser blockaded the Israeli port in the Red Sea. They didn't need to wait around for Nasser to drive into the Sinai and fire his pistol at a guard post after that.

 

Yes. They need 'students' with no critical thinking skills and reading at about a third grade level by the time they start warming seats at university; they're much easier to indoctrinate, having little in the way of independent thinking abilities.

 

If you actually would read the article from the link I provided all of your questions will be answered and you will be more informed on the legal aspects of the Civil War.

For example, if it was a war, both the Union soldiers and the Confederate soldiers would fall under the protections of the international rules of war. This is really important when it came to POW's on both sides. Guerrilla forces like Quantrill Raiders wouldn't fall under the protections of international laws of war or the Constitution and could be executed if captured if it was a war. But if it was a rebellion, they did fall under the protections of the Constitution and would have to stand trial in a court of law.

Sherman "March to the Sea" a scorch earth tactic, legal or illegal ? Probably a war crime under international rules of war. Seems to be legal during a rebellion, Sherman was never prosecuted as a war criminal.

 

nobody said he didn't. Too bad for your argument he wasn't suppressing an insurrection.

Indeed. Why should you go through all the trouble to read the available historical records n stuff when it's so much easier to just babble on with made up trite memes you picked up from some astroturfer somewhere on a web page? They're a lot shorter and don't require any actual knowledge.

 

A small part of the historical record for the Peanut Gallery that never makes it into classrooms, yet describes the real goals of Lincoln the railroad lawyer and the founders of the Republican Party. Corporate welfare was the plan, and if you need further confirmation of that then all you need do is go the Congressional Record and see for yourself what Bills they put the highest priority on even as they launched invasions of the South:

"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel".... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." ..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "
Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it." ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel".... Charles ****ens in a London periodical in December 1861

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." ..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "
Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it." ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

... and pages and pages and pages more on the real Lincoln's motives.

 

in 1860 70% of the federal tax revenues came from the Southern States.

In 1861 Lincoln discovered the the federal government couldn't pay it's bills without those Southern tax revenues.

 

I'm not arguing for or defending the South. If I were living in America in 1861 I suppose it would have been what state I lived in in 1861 on who I sided with.

Before 1861 most Americans first loyalty was to the individual sovereign state they lived in and loyalty to the Union was second. Like it or not, that's the way it was back then.

It was the individual sovereign states that created the Union. (federal government) The Union (federal government) didn't create the states.

Even U.S. territory, it took a majority of the population to decide if they wanted to become a state and a member of the Union, not the federal government.

The outcome of the civil war at great cost in human lives and blood made America stronger as a nation. But it also created the beginning of big government which isn't really a good thing unless you want to become dependent on government. Look at what we have today.

Note: My great great grandfather came to America in 1868 from what is Germany today. My great great grandfather's brother was already living in America by 1861 and served during the civil war in the Union forces as a Lieutenant in the cavalry.

 

Request denied.

I've only asked one (not counting those you've ignored) and I'm pretty sure it doesn't take 90 pages to answer it.

Coming from someone who has just lately learned that treason is defined in the Constitution, this is not the most compelling recommendation.

Perhaps you're under the impression the President swears an oath to uphold the "international rules of war"?

So is the supremacy clause news to you as well?

Of course he was, as I explained in the post upthread that you haven't got stones enough to answer.

Please, if my reading comprehension were as crappy as yours I'd be better off with comic books anyway.

 

Total Bull ****.



Just who was paying the bulk of the tariff revenues?

 

Not worthy of going much further than this: This line is a lie.

Total garbage.